The Outline of the report of the Subcommittee

on handling of ALPS treated water

Agency for Natural Resources and EnergyMETI

10th February, 2020

Introduction : Generation of contaminated water, purification process and tank storage◇ Water gets contaminated when it touches the damaged reactors and fuel debris in buildings. The level of groundwater outside is controlled to be higher than that of contaminated water

inside the buildings to prevent the water flowing out of the building.Groundwater keeps flowing into the buildings

◇ TEPCO has been successful in removing most of radionuclides except tritium from contaminated water. ALPS (Multi-nuclide retrieval equipment) and the other equipment have been used. See more at P12

１

It is ALPS treated water, NOT -contaminated water, that is stored in the tanks. Radioactive materials in ALPS treated water are reduced to about 1/1,000,000 (one millionth).

Sub-drainSea-side

Impermeablewall

Fuel Debris

Contaminated Water

ALPS

Continuous injection of cooling water

Flow of groundwater

ALPS-treated water

Land-side Impermeable wall(frozen-soil wall)

②Most of the nuclides except tritium are removed in this process.

③ Treated water is stored in tanks.

① Contaminated water is sent to purification equipment such as ALPS.

Damaged Reactors at FDNPS

Key Figures for ALPS treated water at the site(As of Dec 12, 2019)

Number of tanks 965

Tank Storage volume About 1.18 million ㎥

Planned capacity (Under current plan)

About 1.37 million ㎥(by the end of 2020)

Annual increase of ALPS treated water About 50,000～60,000㎥/year

Time to reach its full capacity (forecast): around summer of 2022

Amount of Tritium (tritiatedwater) in tanks

Approx. 860 TBq* (16g)(*TBq = 1×1012 Becquerel)

Average Concentration of Tritium

0.73 MBq/L(*MBq = 1×106 Becquerel)

※ As of Oct 31,2019※Currently, several kinds of radionuclides other than tritium are found

in ALPS treated water in tanks. → See page 12 ※ If the treated water is discharged into the environment, it will be re-

purified and diluted to meet the standards for discharge.

Introduction : Key figures of ALPS treated water

2

※ About 2 years will be needed for preparation and permission for disposal.

※There is a limited room for further tank construction

Role of the subcommittee:1) to examine in a comprehensive manner, such as countermeasures for reputational damage, and 2) to compile report for the government

GOJ will decide its basic policy, after receiving report of subcommittee and discussing with parties concerned.

Introduction : Process ahead

The Subcommitteeon handling of

ALPS treated waterGovernment

Report

Stakeholders(community people etc.)

Request for examination Listen to opinions of parties concernedDiscuss from experts’ point of view

TEPCO

Decide on engineering

Approve

Apply

Measures for handlingNuclear Regulation

Authority

１ ２

３

Decide on basic policy

Share the discussion at subcommittee

3

The key points of the report (1): Basic approach

5

Reputational damage still remains and affects reconstruction of Fukushima.

"Coexistence of reconstruction and decommissioning" is a basic principle:- Returning of residents and reconstruction efforts in the surrounding area have been proceeding.

- Additional reputational damage should not be caused by a hastened disposition of ALPS treated water.

Disposition of ALPS treated water needs to be completed until the completion of the decommissioning:- with necessary storage, and - with due consideration to the minimization of the impact on reputation

In deciding the disposition of the ALPS treated water, the government must also compile a policy for countermeasures against reputational damage.

4

Vapor release Discharge into the sea

Technical Issues

Precedent in case of accident at NPP overseas* Vapor is also released from reactors in normal operations

at the time of ventilation.

In Japan, there is no example of vapor release in order to dispose liquid waste.

Difficult to predict how the released vapor is diffused into the air

Difficult to establish proper monitoring methods

Precedents exist world-wide

More reliable option* precedents in Japan and easiness of operating facilities

Relatively easy to predict how discharged water is diffused in the ocean

Easy to examine proper monitoring method

Social issues

Difficult to compare the social impacts of two methods* Social impact is greatly dependent on consumer psychology.

May attract significant social concern May attract particularly large social concern if no countermeasure for reputational damage is taken

The following three options have many insurmountable issues (regulatory, technological, and timewise)Geosphere injection：Need to seek for appropriate sites, and monitoring methods have not been establishedHydrogen release ：Further technological development would be required for pretreatment and scale expansion.Underground burial ：In solidification process, water including tritium will be evaporated. New regulations may be necessary.

Area for disposal yard will be needed.

The key points of the report (2): disposal methods Vapor release and Discharge into the sea have been conducted and recognized as feasible

methods. There are precedents for discharge into the sea in Japan and it is easy to operate necessary

facilities. Thus this can be conducted with certainty. Radiation impact of both methods is considerably small compared to natural exposure to radiation.

5

Exposure dose [mSv/y] Vapor release※1 discharge into the sea※2

All radionuclides※3 0.0012※4 0.000071～0.00081

- tritium 0.0012 0.0000068

Natural exprosure

Discharge into the sea

Vapor release

1.0 2.1 mSv/y

Comparison of radiation impact between natural exposure anddischarging treated water containing 860 TBq of tritium

0.5 1.5 2.05 2.2

Impact assessment for environmental release of ALPS treated water

Using UNSCEAR*1 assessment model*2 and precondition that all the treated water stored in tanks (containing 860TBq of tritium) is discharged in one year. (*1: UNSCEAR: The United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation)(*2: re-assessed with Japanese food consumption)

[Ref. UNSCEAR 2016 Report, Annex A “Methodology for estimating public exposures due to radioactive discharges”]

[case 1] Vapor release ------- Approx. 0.0012 mSv/year (1.3 μSv/year)[case 2] Discharge into the sea ---- Approx. 0.000071 to 0.00081 mSv/year (0.071 to 0.81 μSv/year)

In both discharge methods, the impact of the radiation from the discharge is considerably small, compared with annual natural exposure in Japan: 2.1 mSv/year (2,100 μSv/year).

※1 Sum of external dose from the atmosphere and soils, and internal dose from inhaling the air and ingesting terrestrial life (at 5km points from the FDNPS)※2 Sum of external dose from beaches and internal dose from ingesting marine life. ※3 Estimation was conducted on the two assumptions that “ND (Not Detected)” nuclides are 1) their ND value and 2) zero.※4 For exposure dose for [case 1 (vapor release)], there is no difference between the results from two assumptions

6

0.0012 mSv/year

0.00081 mSv/year

2.1 mSv/year

[Conditions]

The key points of the report(3):Countermeasures against reputational damage

1) Well planned disposition process2) Expansion and enhancement of countermeasures building on best practices3) Continuous and flexible response

＜1. Well planned disposition processes ＞ Re-purify radionuclides other than tritium Stop the disposition process in case of emergency

e.g. environmental situation, malfunction of facilities

Determine the details (starting time, volume, and period of disposition), while listening to opinions of stakeholders

Disseminate information in a considerate and an easy-to-understand manner Concentration of pre-disposition ALPS treated water Monitoring results of surrounding environment

Explain safety of surrounding environment by utilizing diffusion simulation

7

The key points of the report(3): - continued

< Economic measures> - for reputational damage

Constructing analytical frameworkfor: Environmental monitoring, and Food sampling measurement

Utilizing third-party certification to secure consumer trust, such as GAP (Good Agricultural Practice) MEL (Marine Eco-label)

Developing new market channels by Promotion events for Fukushima

products Allocation of special sales staff in

stores Opening of on-line stores etc.

< Risk communication> - to convey relevant information

Disseminating information on the disposal method and scientific knowledge in advance

Providing information via: Social media, mass media On-site lectures

Strengthening information dissemination abroad Basic information on

decommissioning Disposition methods in the world as

well as precedents outside of Japan

＜2. Expansion and enhancement of countermeasures building on best practices＞

8

9提供：日本スペースイメージング（株）2018.6.14撮影Product(C)[2018] DigitalGlobe, Inc.

Soil dumping

areaFacilities for waste will be

built

The key points of the report(4):Possibility of storage continuation

Tank area

1 2 3 4

There is a limited room for construction of additional tanks. (Tank capacity under the current plan: approx. 1.37 million m3)

Areas where flanged tanks used to be built may become available. For further decommissioning work, various facilities will be needed (such as storage tanks for

ALPS treated water temporary storage facilities for spent fuel and fuel debris).

Entire premises should be used effectively, considering its limitation.

The key points of the report(5): Storage at off-site

[Issues on transfer to off-site]●Transfer facilities in accordance with the laws and regulations would be needed.

- ex. Pipeline: physical protection facilities (fence, etc.) surrounding the pipelines would be needed.

- ex. Vehicles or ships: need to carry type L transport casks (maximum volume of 4 m3)procedure for transport outside the nuclear site would be needed.

●Consensus would be needed from local municipalities where a possible transfer route would be located.

●Leakage risk during transfer cannot be ruled out.

[Issues on off-site storage]●Operation license for a storage site in accordance with the laws and regulations.●Consensus from local municipalities at the storage site would be needed. 10

If ALPS treated water would be stored at off-site, – Legally compliant transfer facilities would be required. – Consensus would be needed from the municipalities where a possible transfer route would

be located.– At a storage site, operation license and approval of local municipalities would be needed.

The transfer of ALPS treated water to off-site would require significant preparation a wide range of coordination in advance and considerable period of time.

Tritium separation removing highly concentrated tritiated water (HCTW) from lowly concentrated tritiated water (LCTW).

- If the tritium separation technology would be applied to ALPS treated water, large amount of LCTW, which needs to be disposed of after dilution to meet the regulatory standards, would have to be generated.

- HCTW needs to be stored continually.

Preceding cases of tritium separation technologies show that the application of the technologies to ALPS treated water is NOT practical because: The tritium concentration of ALPS treated water is too low to be applied to. (See red boxes below) The throughput of existing separation technologies are too small to deal with ALPS treated water.

(See green boxes below) Demonstration project for tritium separation technology (2014-2016) revealed that there was

no technology close to practical use for ALPS treated water. Technological trends should be monitored carefully and continuously.

Table: Existing tritium separation technologies: the change of concentration and throughput Preceding cases Applied separation technologies

Concentration before separation/ raw water

Concentration after separation [LCTW]**

Throughput(m3/day)

Darlington Tritium Removal Facility (Canada)

Isotope exchange + Hydrogen distillation 0.4～1.3 TBq/L 0.01-0.035 TBq/L 8.6

Wolsong Tritium Removal Facility(Korea)

Isotope exchange + Hydrogen distillation 0.04～2 TBq/L 0.001-0.07 TBq/L 2.1

Fugen Heavy Water Upgrader (Ⅱ)(Japan)

Isotope exchange 0.1 TBq/L 0.000004 TBq/L (4 MBq/L) 0.03

ITER Tritiated Water Treatment Equipment (Design stage) (EU)

Isotope exchange+ Hydrogen distillation 0.4 TBq/L

* 0.000004 TBq/L (4MBq/L) 0.48*

(Ref.) ALPS treated water at FDNPS -

0.00000073 TBq/L(0.73 MBq) -

At least, several hundreds m³/day

The key points of the report(6): Tritium separation technology

*The data is only from isotope exchange. **The above figures of tritium concentration are the ones before dilution for discharge. 11

Direct rays from tanks/skyshineDirect rays from sources other than tanks/skyshine

Other (Groundwater bypass/sub-drains, etc.)

9.76

0.900.920.961.44

Two regulatory standards:1) Applicable to storage: to keep site boundary dose levels less than 1mSv/year Goal currently achieved through ALPS

2) Applicable to release to the environment: to keep radionuclides concentrations of treated water less than the regulatory limit.

There are various concentration of ALPS treated water in the tanks, because: Concentration of ALPS treated water depends on the attributes of water to be treated and operation management of ALPS

such as frequency of absorbent exchange; and

Especially in the first few years after the accident, which was before improvement of ALPS performance, concentrations of tritium in ALPS treated water was relatively high.

In case of releasing ALPS treated water to the environment, the water needs to satisfy standard 2). TEPCO announced to re-purify ALPS treated water, to meet standard 2) for radionuclides other than tritium. After the re-purification, the water will be diluted to meet the standard 2) for tritium.

*These drawings are quoted from “Treated water `portal site（TEPCO HP）” 12

The key points of the report(7): Characteristics of ALPS treated water

Site Boundary dose levels

Graph1

End of FY2013End of FY2013End of FY2013

End of FY2014End of FY2014End of FY2014

End of FY2015End of FY2015End of FY2015

End of FY2016End of FY2016End of FY2016

End of FY2017End of FY2017End of FY2017

その他（地下水バイパス・サブドレン等）

タンク以外に起因する直接線・スカイシャイン線

タンクに起因する直接線・スカイシャイン線

Site boundary dose levels (assessed value) (mSv/year)

Site boundary dose levels (assessed values)

0.03

0.54

9.19

0.325

0.5574622827

0.55834994

0.316

0.44

0.208

0.316

0.43

0.17

0.316

0.53

0.052

グラフ

平成 ヘイセイH26.3H27.3H28.3H29.3H30.3

平成25年度 ヘイセイネンド平成26年度 ヘイセイネンド平成27年度 ヘイセイネンド平成28年度 ヘイセイネンド平成29年度 ヘイセイネンド

西暦 セイレキ2014.32015.32016.32017.32018.3

西暦 セイレキEnd of FY2013End of FY2014End of FY2015End of FY2016End of FY2017

タンクに起因する直接線・スカイシャイン線 キインチョクセツセンセン9.190.560.210.170.052

タンク以外に起因する直接線・スカイシャイン線 イガイキインチョクセツセンセン0.540.560.440.430.53

その他（地下水バイパス・サブドレン等） タチカスイナド0.030.3250.3160.3160.316

合計 ゴウケイ9.761.440.960.920.90

グラフ

その他（地下水バイパス・サブドレン等）

タンク以外に起因する直接線・スカイシャイン線

タンクに起因する直接線・スカイシャイン線

敷地境界線量「評価値」(mSv/年)

敷地境界線量「評価値」

* Numbers indicate the amount of tritium emissions.

PWR

BWR or ABWR Reprocessing facilityCANDU or HWR

AGRSource：UK：Radioactivity in Food and the Environment, 2015Canada：Canadian National Report for the Convention on Nuclear Safety, Seventh ReportFrance：Tritium White paper 2016Korea： FY2016 Survey on environmental radioactivity around the nuclear power plant and evaluation report, KHNPOther countries ：UNSCEAR｢2008 Annual report｣ Japan : Fukushima Pref. and TEPCO report 2010 (data period from April 1, 2010 to March 11, 2011)

Korea ・Wolseong NPPLiquid：About 17 TBq

Steam：About 119 TBq(in 2016)

Korea・Kori NPPLiquid ： About 36 TBqSteam ： About 16 TBq

（in 2016）

France ・ La Hague reprocessing plant

Liquid： About 13700 TBqSteam： About 78 TBq

(in 2015)

Spain・Cofrentes NPPLiquid ：About 3.1 TBqSteam ：About 3.9 TBq

( in 2002)

US・Brunswick 1 NPPLiquid： About 0.2 TBqSteam： About 4.3 TBq

(in 2002)US・Grand Gulf NPP

Liquid ： About 2.0 TBqSteam ： About 2.6 TBq

(in 2002)

US・Diablo Canyon1 NPPLiquid ：About 51 TBqSteam ：About 11 TBq

(in 2002)

Canada・Darlington NPPLiquid ：About 241 TBqSteam：About 254 TBq

(in 2015)

Canada・Pickering A,B NPPLiquid ： About 372 TBqSteam ：About 535 TBq

(in 2015)

Romania・Cernavoda NPPLiquid： About 85 TBqSteam：About 286 TBq

(in 2002)

US・Callaway NPPLiquid ： About 42 TBq

(in 2002)

France・Tricastin NPPLiquid ： About 54 TBq

（in 2015）

Slovenia・Krsko NPPLiquid ：About 13 TBq

(in 2002)

Germany・Gräfen Rheinfeld NPPLiquid ： About 21 TBq（in 2002,

not in operation)

Spain・Asco NPPLiquid ： About 95 TBq

(in 2002) Brasil・Angra NPPLiquid ： About 25 TBq

（in 2002）

China ・Daya Bay NPPAbout 42 TBq（in 2002） Taiwan ・Maanshan NPPLiquid ： About 40 TBq

Steam ： About 10 TBq（in 2002）

UK・Sellafield reprocessing facilityLiquid：About 1540 TBqSteam ：About 84 TBq

(in 2015)

UK・Haysham B NPPLiquid ：About 390 TBq

(in 2015)

Germany・Gundremmingen B-C NPPLiquid ： About 5.9 TBqSteam ：About 1.2 TBq

(in 2002)

UK・Sizewell B NPPAbout 20 TBq (in 2015)

Canada・Bruce A,B NPPLiquid ：About 892 TBqSteam：About 1079 TBq

(in 2015)

＜Ref.＞1×1012Bq≒ about0.019g（Tritiated water）

NPP Accident

US・TMISteam ： About 24 TBq

(in 1990-1993)

Japan ・Fukushima Daiichi NPP

Liquid：About 2.2 TBqSteam：About 1.5 TBq

(in 2010)

The key of the report(8): Examples of tritium emission[Ref.]Annual Tritium emissions from nuclear facilities around the world

BWRs in Japan (average)Liquid：About 0.0316 – 1.9 TBqSteam: About 0.0770 – 1.9 TBq

(Average:2008～2010)PWRs in Japan

Liquid：About 18 – 83 TBqSteam: 0.44 – 13 TBq

(Average:2008～2010)

13

14

References

[Ref.1] Decommissioning of TEPCO Fukushima Daiichi NPS (FDNPS)

15

Removing fuel from the Spent Fuel Pool

Fuel debris retrieval

Disassembly of reactor facility, etc

Rubble removal

Ascertaining of the situation inside the PCV/ consideration of fuel debris retrieval etc

Consideration of scenario and technologies

Installation of fuel removal equipment

Fuel debris retrieval

Design and construction of equipment

Fuel removal Storage/Transportation

Storage/Transportation

Dismantling and other

tasks

Current progress

Units 1 and 2 Unit 3 Unit 4

Units 1-3

Extended to 30-40 years

◇ Fukushima Daiichi Decommissioning is a continuous risk reduction activity to protect the people and the environment from the risks associated with radioactive substances by: Removing spent fuel and fuel debris from the Reactor Building Reducing the risks associated with contaminated water and radioactive waste

◇ Safe and steady decommissioning is a prerequisite for reconstruction of Fukushima

Water

Fuel Debris

Spent fuel(Spent fuel pool)

Fuel that remains after its usage for power generation. Continuous cooling is needed to suppress the heat

Fuel that has melted and solidified by the accident. Continuous cooling is needed to suppress the heat

Contaminated Water Management

Radioactive Solid Waste Management

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

[Ref.2] Impact on the Surrounding Environment

• The environmental impact on the site and surrounding area have been significantly reduced.

Guidance value recommended in the WHO Guidelines for Drinking water quality (10Bq/L)

(Bq/L)

There has been no effect of the radioactive material (dusts etc.) to the outside in the

course of decommissioning work.

Whole map of Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear plant

Sea

AirR

adia

tion

dose

rat

e (

mSv

/yea

r)

10,000 over

16

Near the south discharge channel

N

Evaluation of annual exposure dose at the site boundary due to radioactive materials (cesium) from the reactors buildings of Units 1-4

◇ Tritium is a relative of hydrogen that emits weak radiation. ◇ Tritium exists naturally and is found in water such as water vapor in the atmosphere, rain, sea

water, and tap-water, as tritiated water has similar properties as those of water.

[Ref.3] What is Tritium?

3H concentration in river water and tap water in Fukushima pref. and 3H concentration in precipitation at Chiba pref.

(1978-2017)

Precipitation (Chiba)

3 H C

once

ntra

tion

(BqL

-1)

Tap water (Fukushima)

River water, and lake and marsh water (Fukushima)

Comparison of impact of tritium and well-known radioactive nuclides on living organisms

Tritium (Water)

Carbon 14

Sodium 24

Phosphorus 32

Potassium 40

Cobalt 60

Iodine 131

Cesium 137

10000 times

1000 times

100 times

10 times

Actual sizeEx

istin

g in

N

atur

e

Exist

ing

in

Nat

ure

Non

-des

truc

tive

insp

ectio

n ra

diat

ion

sour

ce

–Ca

ncer

tr

eatm

ent

Fiss

ion

prod

uct

Fiss

ion

prod

uct

Non

-des

truc

tive

insp

ectio

n ra

diat

ion

sour

ce

–Ca

ncer

tr

eatm

ent

It has not been found that tritium concentrates in human beings and particular living organisms Impact on health is very low, around 1/300 of that of Potassium-40.

(* Potassium-40 is abundant in foods such as vegetables and fruits.)

NPPs in Japan and overseas have been discharging water containing tritium for more than 40 years in compliance with the standard limits based on the laws and regulations. Concentration of tritium in sea water near NPPs are significantly lower than that of drinking water standards in the world. It has not been found that tritium from NPPs have an impact on health. The amount of tritium, which is generated at domestic nuclear power plants (NPPs) and released into the sea annually*,

is around 1.7 times as much as that of tritium found in annual precipitation in Japan. (* 5 year average before 2011)

Precipitation (Chiba)

Tap water (Fukushima)

River, lake and marsh water(Fukushima)

17

[Ref.4] Impact assessment –UNSCEAR Model* - UNSCEAR Model* Made for public exposure assessment in the case of radionuclides discharge, both to the air and into the sea,

on the assumption that there has been constant discharge**.* Re-assessment was made using national health and nutrition examination survey in Japan.** assess the public exposure in the 100th year, on the assumption that there will be a continuous and constant discharge

for 100 years

[Case 1] Vapor release Public exposure is calculated as the sum of external dose from the atmosphere and soil, and internal dose from inhaling

the air and ingesting terrestrial life (at 5km points off the leeward side of the FDNPS).- Rate of the time staying outside: 0.2- Rate of the local terrestrial food: 0.25- Amount of Food consumption per person (kg/year): Japan (Ref: Asia+Pacific) (Grains 155 (141.5), Plants/Fruits 188

(240.8), Mild/Dairy products 41.8 (44.5), Meat/Internal organs 35.4(29.5))

[Case 2] Discharge into the sea Public exposure is calculated as the sum of external dose from beaches and internal dose from ingesting marine life. For the assessment, sea area is divided into local sea areas (area with 1 billion m3 of sea water) and regional sea area

(with 1000 trillion m3) - Rate of marine food from local sea area: Fish 0.25, Crustacea 1.0, Mollusk 1.0- Rate of marine food from regional sea area: Fish 0.75, Crustacea 0, Mollusk 0 - Amount of Food consumption per person (kg/year): Japan (Ref: Asia + Pacific) (Fish 21.7 (6.9), Crustacea 1.42(1.4),

Mollusk 1.97 (2.4))

Other parameters for the assessment- Assumption of concentration of tritium before dilution : 1 M Bq/L

(concentration rate will be set to meet the standard before discharge)- Concentration of radionuclides other than tritium before dilution: Data of the treated water stored in K4 tank area**

(** Radionuclides that are not detected (ND) is assumed to be 1) their ND value and 2) zero, 14C = 10Bq/L) 18

Decommissioning and Contaminated Water Managementat TEPCO's Fukushima Daiichi NPS

Film, Fukushima Today 2019- Efforts to Decommission and Reconstruction

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_PeSp--Wuk Film, Fukushima Today

- 8 years after the earthquake -https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKjsSAz5Kws

[Ref.５] Information Portal site （１） : Fukushima Daiichi NPS

https://www.meti.go.jp/english/earthquake/nuclear/decommissioning/index.html

Observation Data, Fukushima Daiichi NPShttps://www7.tepco.co.jp/responsibility/decommissioning/1f_newsroom/data/index-e.html

Treated Water Portal Sitehttp://www.tepco.co.jp/en/decommission/progress/watertreatment/index-e.html

19

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_PeSp--Wukhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKjsSAz5Kwshttps://www.meti.go.jp/english/earthquake/nuclear/decommissioning/index.htmlhttps://www7.tepco.co.jp/responsibility/decommissioning/1f_newsroom/data/index-e.htmlhttp://www.tepco.co.jp/en/decommission/progress/watertreatment/index-e.html

Fukushima Daiichi Status Updates

[Ref. 5] Information Portal site （２） : Fukushima Daiichi NPS

https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus/fukushima/status-update

IAEA Team Completes Fourth Review of Japan’s Plants to Decommission Fukushima Daiichi (November 13, 2018)https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/iaea-team-completes-fourth-review-of-japans-plans-to-decommission-fukushima-daiichi

IAEA Issues Final Report on Fourth Review of Fukushima Decommissioning (January 31, 2019)https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/iaea-issues-final-report-on-fourth-review-of-fukushima-decommissioning

IAEA Review mission reports (Press release )

UNSCEAR 2016 REPORT -Sources, effects and risks of ionizing radiation

hhttps://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/publications/2016.html

20

https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus/fukushima/status-updatehttps://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/iaea-team-completes-fourth-review-of-japans-plans-to-decommission-fukushima-daiichihttps://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/iaea-issues-final-report-on-fourth-review-of-fukushima-decommissioninghttps://www.unscear.org/docs/publications/2016/UNSCEAR_2016_Report-CORR.pdfhttps://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/publications/2016.html

スライド番号 1スライド番号 2スライド番号 3スライド番号 4スライド番号 5スライド番号 6スライド番号 7スライド番号 8スライド番号 9スライド番号 10スライド番号 11スライド番号 12スライド番号 13スライド番号 14スライド番号 15スライド番号 16スライド番号 17スライド番号 18スライド番号 19[Ref.５] Information Portal site （１）　: 　Fukushima Daiichi NPS[Ref. 5] Information Portal site （２）　: 　Fukushima Daiichi NPS